SARITA MISHRA vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: January 23, 2024

+ W.P.(C) 2939/2023

(1) SARITA MISHRA
….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manindra Dubey, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
….. Respondents

Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, and Mr. Krishnan V., Advs.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)

REVIEW PET. 300/2023
1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated August 18, 2023 whereby this Court has rejected the writ petition, wherein a challenge was laid to an order dated February 07, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’, for short) in OA NO. 1663/2021.
2. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court had in paragraph 4 of the order, has held as under:-

“4. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner are a reiteration of the pleas advanced before the Tribunal. We are unable to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the employee namely Late Ajay Kumar Mishra has expired after his date of superannuation. Pursuant to his superannuation, the benefits thereof have been given to him. It was in July, 2019 that he expired. In that sense he ceased to be an employee of respondent No.3 when he expired. It is doubtful that in such circumstance, any of the family members shall be entitled to compassionate appointment. The petitioner has been paid an amount of Rs.11 lakhs. It is also stated that the petitioner is getting family pension.”

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, much before the employee had retired, the representations dated December 28, 2018 and January 21, 2019 were made by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment for her only son on the ground of 100% disability of her husband and as such, the conclusion of this Court rejecting the writ petition may not be correct. He submits that the deceased employee being 100% disabled, the case of his ward for compassionate appointment could have been considered by the respondents.
4. Suffice to state, in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, we have also noted the fact that the employee had died after the date of his superannuation and in such circumstances, it is doubtful whether a family member would be entitled to compassionate appointment. That apart, we also note that the petitioner had received an amount of ?9 lakhs (not ?11 lakhs) as stated by counsel for the petitioner during the hearing today. Moreover, we have also noted that the petitioner is getting family pension and as such, it was held that in the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the OA filed by the review petitioner.
5. We are also of the view that the conclusion arrived at by us in the order dated August 18, 2023 is justified for the reason that the compassionate appointment is reserved only for 5% of the total cadre strength and the fact that the petitioner has two children, who are major and the family is getting pension, the quota of 5% for grant of compassionate appointment needs to be exercised in a more deserving case specially where an employee has left the world leaving his family in lurch without any means of sustenance. In the present case, children of the review petitioner being major, could very well earn their livelihood by seeking employment elsewhere but not solely by invoking the provisions for compassionate appointment.
6. For the reasons stated above, we do not see any merit in the review petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JANUARY 23, 2024/ak

W.P.(C) 2939/2023 Page 1